16-0504 LBC 3 - 1 - V03-Web

LIVING
BUILDING
CHALLENGE
3.1
SM
A Visionary Path to a
Regenerative Future
LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE 3.1

SM
A Visionary Path to a Regenerative Future
LIVING
BUILDING
CHALLENGE
Printed in Canada
SM
NOTIFICATION
All rights reserved. No part of this document may be modified,

nor elements of this document used out of existing context
without written permission.
This particular document may be printed and distributed

in its entirety by any organization for the purposes of
education or adoption of the Challenge. This stipulation
does not apply to other Living Building Challenge or Living
Future Challenge documents or other related documents
unless expressly specified. However it should be noted
that the Institute does provide pre-printed (on FSC paper),
professionally bound copies of the Standard for purchase
at a reasonable price.
For information, address:

The International Living Future Institute
1501 East Madison Street, Suite 150
Seattle, WA 98122
This document may be transmitted in PDF form only

without any modifications madeto any individual or
organization for the purposes of education or adoption of
the Challenge.
Copyright 2016 by International Living Future Institute

2006, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014 previous versions.
International Living Building Institute, International Living
Future Institute and Cascadia Green Building Council.
Living Building Challenge is a trademark of the International

Living Future Institute (the Institute). The terms Living
Buildings, Living Building, Living Building Leader, Living
Future, and Living Future Challenge are also trademarks of
the Institute. No use of these terms is allowed without written
permission from the Institute, and no project may claim to
reach Living Landscape, Living Infrastructure, Living
Renovation, Living Building or Living Neighborhood status
without review and approval by the Institute.
The Institute grants substantial limited uses in order to
encourage a wide distribution, including the following:
This document may be posted on websites in its entirety and

unmodified in PDF form for the purposes of education or
to encourage the adoption of the Challenge. However, the
Institute encourages organizations to instead provide a link
to the Living Building Challenge website at living-future.
org/lbc in order to maintain access to the most current
version of the document.
Use of this document in any form implies acceptance of these
conditions. The Institute reserves the right to modify and
update the Living Building Challenge at its sole discretion.
ITS TIME TO
IMAGINE A
LIVING FUTURE
AND A WORLD OF
LIVING BUILDINGS
Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1
IMAGINE
a building designed and constructed to

function as elegantly and efficiently as a flower: a building
informed by its bioregions characteristics, that generates all
of its own energy with renewable resources, captures and
treats all of its water, and that operates efficiently and for
maximum beauty.
IMAGINE
a city block or a college campus sharing

resources from building to building, growing food, and
functioning without a dependency on fossil fuelbased
transportation.
IMAGINE
true sustainability in our homes,

workplaces, neighborhoods, villages, towns, and cities
Socially Just, Culturally Rich and Ecologically RestorativeSM.
Ethnobotanical Garden at Bertschi School, Seattle, WA

Living Certification - Living Building Challenge 2.0
Photo: GGLO
WHAT DOES GOOD LOOK LIKE?
The International Living Future Institute issues a challenge:

TO ALL DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, CONTRACTORS AND
BUILDING OWNERS to create the foundation for a sustainable
future in the fabric of our communities.
TO POLITICIANS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to remove
barriers to systemic change, and to realign incentives to truly
protect the health, safety and welfare of people and all beings.
TO ALL OF HUMANITY to reconcile the built environment with
the natural environment, into a civilization that creates greater
biodiversity, resilience and opportunities for life with each
adaptation and development.
INSTEAD OF A WORLD THAT IS

MERELY A LESS BAD VERSION
OF THE ONE WE CURRENTLY
HAVEWE ASK A SIMPLE AND
PROFOUND QUESTIONWHAT
DOES GOOD LOOK LIKE?
SETTING THE IDEAL AS THE INDICATOR OF SUCCESS
THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE IS A PHILOSOPHY, CERTIFICATION AND ADVOCACY TOOL FOR
PROJECTS TO MOVE BEYOND MERELY BEING LESS BAD AND TO BECOME TRULY REGENERATIVE.
HIGH
PERFORMANCE
GREEN
CODE
LIVING BUILDING
CHALLENGE
POSITIVE
REGENERATIVE
IMPACTS
SUSTAINABLE
NEGATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CALL TO ACTION
HOW THE LIVING BUILDING
CHALLENGE WORKS
WHAT IS DIFFERENT
ABOUT VERSION 3.1?
SUMMARY MATRIX
MATERIALS
42
10. Red List
44
10
20
21
11. Embodied Carbon Footprint
45
12. Responsible Industry
46
13. Living Economy Sourcing
47
14. Net Positive Waste
48
EQUITY
50
15. Human Scale + Humane Places
53
16. Universal Access to Nature & Place
54
17. Equitable Investment
56
18. JUST Organizations
57
PLACE
22
01. Limits to Growth
24
02. Urban Agriculture
25
03. Habitat Exchange
26
BEAUTY
58
04. Car Free Living
27
19. Beauty + Spirit
60
WATER
28
05. Net Positive Water
30
ENERGY
32
06. Net Positive Energy
34
HEALTH + HAPPINESS
20. Inspiration + Education
61
A BRIEF HISTORY OF
THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE
62
36
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
FOR DEEPER ENGAGEMENT
63
07. Civilized Environment
38
GLOSSARY
70
08. Healthy Interior Environment
39
09. Biophilic Environment
40
The Hawaii Preparatory Academy Energy Lab, Kamuela, HI

Photo: Matthew Millman Photography / Courtesy: Flansburgh Architects
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
CREATING A REGENERATIVE WORLD TOGETHER
OUR GOAL IS SIMPLE. IN THE

WORDS OF BUCKMINSTER FULLER
TO MAKE THE WORLD WORK
FOR 100% OF HUMANITY IN THE
SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME THROUGH
SPONTANEOUS COOPERATION
WITHOUT ECOLOGICAL OFFENSE OR
THE DISADVANTAGE OF ANYONE.1
The Living Building Challenge is an attempt to dramatically
raise the bar from a paradigm of doing less harm to one in
which we view our role as a steward and co-creator of a true
Living Future. The Challenge defines the most advanced
measure of sustainability in the built environment today and
acts to rapidly diminish the gap between current limits and the
end-game positive solutions we seek.
The Challenge aims to transform how we think about every
single act of design and construction as an opportunity to
positively impact the greater community of life and the cultural
fabric of our human communities. The program has always
been a bit of a Trojan horsea philosophical worldview cloaked
within the frame of a certification program. The Challenge is
1
The Living Building Challenge was the 2012 winner of the Buckminster
Fuller Prize, the worlds top award for socially responsible design.
successful because it satisfies our left-brain craving for order

and thresholds, and our right-brain intuition that the focus
needs to be on our relationship with and understanding of the
whole of life.
As such the program is a philosophy first, an advocacy tool
second, and a certification program third. Within the larger
Living Future Challenge framework that covers the creation of
all human artifacts and edifices, the Living Building Challenge
focuses on humanitys most abundant creationsits buildings.
It is in essence a unified tool for transformative thought,
allowing us to envision a future that is Socially Just, Culturally
Rich and Ecologically Restorative.
Regardless of the size or location of the project, the Living
Building Challenge provides a framework for design,
construction and the symbiotic relationship between people
and all aspects of community. Indeed, Living Building
Challenge is not a merely a noun that defines the character of
a particular solution for development, but is more relevant if
classified as a series of verbscalls for action that describe not
only the building of all of humanitys longest-lasting artifacts,
but also the relationships and broader sense of community and
connectivity that they engender. It is a challenge to immerse
ourselves in such a pursuitand many refer to the ability to do
so as a paradigm shift.
continued >>
Projects that achieve Living Building status can claim to be

the greenest anywhere, and will serve as role models for others
that follow. Whether the project is restorative, regenerative, or
operates with a net zero impact, it has a home in the construct
of the Living Building Challenge.
Although it may seem to be ambitious to simultaneously
achieve all of the requirements of the Living Building Challenge,
understanding the Standard and documenting compliance is
inherently easy: There are never more than twenty simple and
profound Imperatives that must be met for any type of project,
at any scale, in any location around the world.
This Standard is decidedly not a checklist of best practicesthe
Imperatives of the Living Building Challenge are performancebased and position the ideal outcome as an indicator of success.
The specific methodology used to meet the expectations of
the Living Building Challenge is not up to our Institutebut
rather to the genius of the design teams, owners, and occupants
themselves, who are expected to make informed and vested
decisions appropriate to the project, place, and bioregion.
The Living Building Challenge is a holistic standard, pulling
together the most progressive thinking from the worlds of
architecture, engineering, planning, interiors, landscape design,
and policy. It challenges us to ask these questions:
McGilvra Park, Seattle, WA

Photo: Berger Partnership
What if every single act of design and construction made the

world a better place? What if every intervention resulted in
greater biodiversity; additional outlets for beauty and personal
expression; a deeper understanding of climate, culture and
place; a realignment of our food and transportation systems;
increased soil health; and a more profound sense of what
it means to be a citizen of a planet where resources and
opportunities are provided fairly and equitably?
A tall order to be sure.
The scale of change we seek is immense. But without recording
these utmost visions and clarity of purpose, we as a society
will never experience the type of future that is possible and
necessary for our long-term survival. It is our belief that only
a few decades remain to completely reshape humanitys
relationship with nature and to realign our ecological footprint
to be within the planets carrying capacity.
Incremental change is no longer a viable option.
Over the last twenty years, green building has grown to
become the most important and progressive trend in the
building industry. There have been huge steps forward in
the design, construction and operation of buildings, and yet
when compared with the rate of change that is required to
avoid the worst effects of climate change and other global
environmental challenges, our progress has been minute and
barely recordable.
CALL TO ACTION
WE ARE ENTERING A WORLD OF

PEAK OIL, PEAK WATER AND PEAK
PHOSPHORUS, A WORLD THAT IS
GLOBALLY INTERCONNECTED YET
ECOLOGICALLY IMPOVERISHED.
A world with seven billion people and counting.
A world where every single major ecological system
is in decline, and the rate of that decline is increasing.
A world where global temperature increases means
shifting rainfall distributions, acidified oceans and
potentially catastrophic sea-level rise.
Nothing less than a sea change in building, infrastructure and
community design is required. Indeed, this focus needs to be
the great work of our generation. We must remake our cities,
towns, neighborhoods, homes and offices, and all the spaces
and infrastructure in between. This is part of the necessary
process of reinventing our relationship with the natural world
reestablishing ourselves not separate from, but part and
parcel with creation.2
2
Attributed to E. O. Wilson, a biologist, theorist, researcher and

naturalist that has been inspirational in the evolution of the Living
Building Challenge.
continued >>
Since it was launched in 2006, the Living Building Challenge

has inspired and motivated rapid and significant change:
projects have sprouted up all over North America and beyond
currently, there are efforts underway in a dozen countries with
several million square feet of Living Building Challenge projects
in progresseach as beacons in the dark showing what is
possible; the regulatory environment has embraced a series of
reforms; and most importantly, a new sense of possibility has
permeated design communities as a result of the successful
certification of the first Living Buildings.
THIS STANDARD IS AN ACT OF

OPTIMISM AND BELIEF THAT
WITH THE RIGHT TOOLS IN THE
HANDS OF PASSIONATE, LITERATE,
AND SENSITIVE INDIVIDUALS, A
REVOLUTIONARY TRANSFORMATION
IS POSSIBLE. IT IS A PROGRAM THAT
ASKS US TO THINK HOLISTICALLY
AND TO ENGAGE BOTH OUR RIGHT
AND LEFT BRAINS, HEAD AND HEART.
We invite you to join us so that together we can continue to
forge ahead on our path toward restoration and a Living Future.
HOW THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE WORKS
PROVEN PERFORMANCE RATHER

THAN ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
The Living Building Challenge consists of seven performance
categories, or Petals: Place, Water, Energy, Health & Happiness,
Materials, Equity and Beauty. Petals are subdivided into a total of
twenty Imperatives, each of which focuses on a specific sphere
of influence. This compilation of Imperatives can be applied to
almost every conceivable building project, of any scale and any
locationbe it a new building or an existing structure.
THERE ARE TWO RULES TO BECOMING
A LIVING BUILDING:
All Imperatives are mandatory. Many of the Imperatives
have temporary exceptions to acknowledge current market
limitations. These are listed in the Petal Handbooks, which
should be consulted for the most up-to-date rulings.
Temporary exceptions will be modified or removed as the
market changes. With this Standard, the Institute requires
advocacy for essential improvements to the building industry.
Living Building Challenge certification is based on actual,
rather than modeled or anticipated, performance. Therefore,
projects must be operational for at least twelve consecutive
months prior to evaluation to verify Imperative compliance.
Some Imperatives can be verified after construction, through
a preliminary audit.

Full certification - Living Building Challenge 1.3
10
LivingMillman
Building
Challenge/SMCourtesy:
3.1
Photo:| Matthew
Photography
Flansburgh Architects

PATHWAYS TO CERTIFICATION
LIVING
BUILDING
CHALLENGE
SM
LIVING
CERTIFICATION
PETAL
CERTIFICATION
NET ZERO ENERGY

CERTIFICATION
A project achieves Living

Certification or Living
Building Certification by
attaining all Imperatives
assigned to its Typology.
All twenty Imperatives
are required for Buildings,
sixteen for Renovations,
and seventeen for
Landscape + Infrastructure
projects.
While achieving Living

Certification is the
ultimate goal, meeting the
Imperatives of multiple
Petals is a significant
achievement in and of itself.
Petal Certification requires
the achievement of at least
three of the seven Petals,
one of which must be the
Water, Energy, or Materials
Petal.
The marketplace has characterized net zero energy in many

different ways. The Institute has a simple definition:
Imperatives 01, Limits to

Growth, and 20, Inspiration
+ Education, are also
required.
One hundred percent of the buildings energy needs on a net

annual basis must be supplied by on-site renewable energy. No
combustion is allowed.
The Net Zero Energy Building Certification program uses the
structure of the Living Building Challenge 3.1 to document
compliance and requires four of the Imperatives to be achieved: 01,
Limits to Growth, 06, Net Positive Energy (reduced to one hundred
percent), 19, Beauty + Spirit, and 20, Inspiration + Education.
The requirement for Imperative 06, Net Positive Energy, is reduced
to one hundred percent and does not require storage for resilience.
One hundred and five percent energy production and storage for
resilience are required for Petal Certifications targeting I-06 Net
Positive Energy, and for all Living Building Certifications.
As with Living Building and Petal Certification, NZEB
certification is based on actual performance rather than
modeled outcomes.
David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Altos, CA

Net Zero Energy Building Certification
Photo: Terry Lorrant
11
PETAL CERTIFICATION AND

NET ZERO ENERGY BUILDING
zHome, Issaquah, WA
Petal Certification
Photo: zHome
DPR Construction Office

Phoenix, AZ
Photo: Gregg Mastorakos
Courtesy: DPR Construction
David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Los Altos, CA
Photo: Terry Lorrant
12
NRDC Midwest Office

Chicago, IL
Petal Certification
Photo: Studio Gang Architects
LIVING BUILDINGS OF
ANY PROJECT TYPE
CIRS at University of British Columbia

Vancouver, BC
Courtesy: Perkins+Will
The Living Building Challenge is versatile and can apply to

any building project. These include but are not limited to:
NEW OR EXISTING BUILDINGS
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
June Key Delta Community Center
Portland, OR
Photo: ILFI/Jay Kosa
Living Learning Center at Tyson

Research Center, Eureka, MO
Photo: Joe Angeles
M ULTI-FAMILYMARKET RATE OR AFFORDABLE

I NSTITUTIONALGOVERNMENT, EDUCATIONAL,
RESEARCH OR RELIGIOUS
COMMERCIALOFFICES, HOSPITALITY, RETAIL,
MUSEUMS, GALLERIES, BOTANICAL GARDENS
M EDICAL AND LABORATORY AND MORE
Living Building Challenge projects come in all shapes and
sizes and consist of both new construction and renovation
projectsincluding historic preservation. If you can imagine
it then it can likely be a Living Building given the right
application of strategies, technologies and imagination.
Currently there are projects pursuing certification in
nearly every building type.
The Bullitt Center, Seattle, WA

Full certification - Living Building Challenge 1.3
Photo: Nic LeHoux
VanDusen Botanical Garden, Vancouver, BC

Photo: Nic Lehoux / Courtesy: Perkins+Will
13
LIVING BUILDINGS IN EVERY

CLIMATE ZONE AND COUNTRY
Living Building Challenge Projects can be built in any climate
zone anywhere in the worldas evidenced by the unique array of
projects currently underway in many countries around the globe.
This map shows a snapshot of project locations as of April 2016.
425
NO. OF
PROJECTS
Because the Challenge is performance-based, the guiding

principles and performance metrics apply regardless of where in
the world the project is locatedwhat changes is the specific mix
of strategies and technologiesleaving it up to the genius of the
design team to choose the most appropriate design response.
16
SQ. FT.
(MILLIONS)
LBC PROJECTS
375
14
1-2 3-5
325
6-10
11-14
14.1
ORGANIZATIONAL
INTEREST
15-19
MILLION
LBC SQ FT
PRESENCE OF
AMBASSADOR NETWORK
20 -24
331
LBC
PROJECTS
12
275
10
225
8
175
6
125
4
75
2
25
2008
14
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
UPDATED 5-6-16
THE LIVING TRANSECTS
To encourage proper development in specific settings,

the standard draws on the work of Duany Plater-Zyberk &
Company, 3 who created the New Urbanism Transect model for
rural to urban categorization. The Transect is a powerful basis
for planning, and demonstrates that different types of standards
befit different development realities.4
The Living Transect, which applies to several Imperatives
throughout the Living Building Challenge, is an adaptation of
the original Transect concept; the significant modification herein
is a reclassification of Transect zones T3 and T4 to emphasize
appropriate mixed-use densification.
THE CHALLENGE PROMOTES THE

TRANSITION OF SUBURBAN ZONES
TO GROW INTO EITHER NEW URBAN
AREAS WITH GREATER DENSITY, OR
TO CREATE BALANCED, MIXED-USE
VILLAGES THAT CAN SUPPORT FULL
LIVES WITH MINIMAL CAR TRIPS, OR
TO BE RESTRUCTURED AS NEW RURAL
ZONES FOR FOOD PRODUCTION,
HABITAT, AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES.
3 www.transect.org
4 These are general descriptions. Refer to the
Site Petal Handbook for more information.
continued >>
15
L1. NATURAL HABITAT PRESERVE (GREENFIELD SITES):

This transect is comprised of land that is set aside as a nature
preserve or is defined as sensitive ecological habitat. It may
not be developed except in limited circumstances related to
the preservation or interpretation of the landscape, as outlined
in the Site Petal Handbook.
L2
L1
L2. RURAL AGRICULTURE ZONE: This transect is

comprised of land with a primary function for agriculture and
development that relates specifically to the production of
food as described in Imperative 02, Urban Agriculture. Small
towns and villages do not apply. (Floor Area Ratio 0.09)
L3. VILLAGE OR CAMPUS ZONE: This transect is

comprised of relatively low-density mixed-use development
found in rural villages and towns, and may also include college
or university campuses. (FAR of 0.10.49)
L3
L4
L4. GENERAL URBAN ZONE: This transect is comprised

of light- to medium-density mixed-use development found in
larger villages, small towns or at the edge of larger cities.
(FAR of 0.51.49)
L5. URBAN CENTER ZONE: This transect is comprised of
a medium- to high-density mixed-use development found in
small to mid-sized cities or in the first ring of a larger city.
(FAR of 1.52.99)
L6
Photo: Andrew F. Kazmierski / Shutterstock.com
16
Photo: joyfull / Shutterstock.com
L5
L6. URBAN CORE ZONE: This transect is comprised of

high-to very high-density mixed use development found
in large cities and metropolises. (FAR. 3.0)
The Living Building Challenge is versatile. There are three

Typologies, and teams must identify the one that aligns with the
project to determine which Imperatives apply:
RENOVATION: This typology is for any project that does

not form the substantial portion of a complete building
reconstruction. Sample projects include single-floor tenant
improvements, residential kitchen remodels or historic
rehabilitations of a portion of a building. Projects that occupy
more than 75% of an existing building and alter either the
envelope or the HVAC systems are not Renovations but rather
Building projects.
LANDSCAPE OR INFRASTRUCTURE (NON-CONDITIONED
DEVELOPMENT): This typology is for any project that does
not include a physical structure as part of its primary program,
although open-air, parklike structures, restrooms, amphitheatres,
and the like do fall into this category. Projects may be as diverse
as roads, bridges, plazas, sports facilities, or trails.
BUILDING: This typology is for any project that encompasses

the construction or substantial renovation of a roofed and walled
structure created for permanent useeither new or existing.
Projects that occupy more than 75% of a building and alter either
the envelope or major systems are considered Building projects.
VanDusen Botanical Garden, Vancouver, BC

17
SCALE JUMPINGTM
LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE

PROJECTS HAVE THEIR OWN UTILITY,
GENERATING THEIR OWN ENERGY AND
PROCESSING THEIR OWN WASTE. THEY
MORE APPROPRIATELY MATCH SCALE
TO TECHNOLOGY AND END USE, AND
RESULT IN GREATER SELF-SUFFICIENCY
AND SECURITY. YET, THE IDEAL SCALE
FOR SOLUTIONS IS NOT ALWAYS WITHIN
A PROJECTS PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
Depending on the technology, the optimal scale can vary when
considering environmental impact, first cost and operating
costs. To address these realities, the Living Building Challenge
has a Scale Jumping overlay to allow multiple buildings or
projects to operate in a cooperative statesharing green
infrastructure as appropriate and allowing for Renovation or
Building status to be achieved as elegantly and efficiently as
possible. Refer to the summary matrix on page 21 to view all
Imperatives that may employ the Scale Jumping overlay. 5
Please note that some projects may then scale from the
Living Building Challenge program to the Living Community
ChallengeSM program, which are designed to work together.
Imperatives where scale jumping are

allowed are marked with this icon.
18
Refer to the v3.1 Petal Handbooks for more information on Scale

Jumping.
Omega Institute, Rhinebeck, NY

Photo: Google Earth
WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT VERSION 3.1
The internal logic of the Living Building Challenge is based

on pragmatic, tested experience with what has already been
built in the marketplace. Each new Living Building adds further
weight to the evidence that a world of Living Buildings is
possible now.
This Standard is an evolving document. Periodically, new
releases that update or clarify the Imperatives will be published.
Because this Standard is continuously informed by the work
that project teams are doing on the ground, Petal Handbooks
have been developed to clarify and consolidate the rules at
a set point in time to provide a unified reference for project
teams. The online Dialogue (see page 65) provides a platform
for project teams to request clarifications. A glossary of critical
program definitions is provided on page 70.
The Living Building Challenge does not dwell on basic bestpractice issues, so it can instead focus on a smaller number of
high-level needs. It is assumed that to achieve this progressive
standard, typical best practices are being met and championed
by the teams expert consultants. The implementation of this
Standard requires leading-edge technical knowledge, an
integrated design approach, and design and construction teams
well versed in advanced practices related to green building.
Regional solutions are manifested in all Living Building
Challenge projects due to a number of variables, including
climate factors and building characteristics. For example,
becoming water-independent in the desert demands the
evolution of a projects design to emulate a cactus instead
of a tree. The built environment will be richer because of this
response to place.
continued >>
19
LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE 3.1 REFINES THE LIVING BUILDING

CHALLENGE 3.0 BUT DOES NOT CHANGE ANY FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR EACH IMPERATIVE.
A FEW KEY CHANGES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
I-01 Limits to Growth: Inclusion of the identification of reference
habitats using the WWF Wildfinder tool with an alternate
compliance path that provides for a performance-based
approach to Limits to Growth.
I-02 Urban Agriculture: Reduction of the percentage of urban
agriculture required for projects to address competing demands
on the site.
I-06 Net Positive Energy: Inclusion of a Resiliency Plan option for
projects that are not single-family residences.
I-10 Red List: Clarification of the limits on VOCs in wet-applied
products
I-11 Embodied Carbon Footprint: Removal of the Living Carbon
Exchange due to the complexities of navigating a shifting global
market.
20
I-12 Responsible Industry: Inclusion of a new ANSI Stone

standard as a requirement for advocacy.
I-13 Living Economy Sourcing: Professionals that hold their
Living Future Accreditation are considered specialty consultants,
regardless of their practice area, and are therefore allowed a
5,000 kilometer distance limit.
I-15 Human Scale + Humane Places: Removal of streets
requirements to acknowledge the Living Community Challenge
role in larger campus projects and changes to sign limits and
maximum building size requirements.
I-17 Equitable Investment: Removal of land cost from total
project cost.
I-18 Just Organizations: Addition of new disciplines already
approved through the Dialogue.
SUMMARY MATRIX
Imperative
omitted from
Typology
The 20 Imperatives of the Living Building Challenge: Follow down the

column associated with each Typology to see which Imperatives apply.
Solutions beyond
project footprint
are permissible
LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE 3.1

BUILDINGS
RENOVATIONS
LANDSCAPE +
INFRASTRUCTURE
PLACE
01. LIMITS TO GROWTH

SCALE JUMPING
SCALE JUMPING
02. URBAN AGRICULTURE
SCALE JUMPING
03. HABITAT EXCHANGE

04. HUMAN-POWERED LIVING
WATER
SCALE JUMPING
05. NET POSITIVE WATER
ENERGY
SCALE JUMPING
06. NET POSITIVE ENERGY
HEALTH +
HAPPINESS
07. CIVILIZED ENVIRONMENT

08. HEALTHY INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT
09. BIOPHILIC ENVIRONMENT
MATERIALS
10. RED LIST

SCALE JUMPING
11. EMBODIED CARBON FOOTPRINT

12. RESPONSIBLE INDUSTRY
13. LIVING ECONOMY SOURCING
14. NET POSITIVE WASTE
EQUITY
15. HUMAN SCALE + HUMANE PLACES

16. UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO NATURE + PLACE
SCALE JUMPING
17. EQUITABLE INVESTMENT

18. JUST ORGANIZATIONS
BEAUTY
19. BEAUTY + SPIRIT

20. INSPIRATION + EDUCATION
21
PLACE
22
PLACE
RESTORING A HEALTHY
INTERRELATIONSHIP WITH NATURE
PETAL INTENT
The intent of the Place Petal is to realign how people understand and relate to the natural
environment that sustains us. The human built environment must reconnect with the deep
story of place and the unique characteristics found in every community so that story can be
honored, protected and enhanced. The Place Petal clearly articulates where it is acceptable
for people to build, how to protect and restore a place once it has been developed, and
how to encourage the creation of communities that are once again based on the pedestrian
rather than the automobile. In turn, these communities need to be supported by a web of
local and regional agriculture, since no truly sustainable community can rely on globally
sourced food production.
The continued spread of sprawl development and the vastly increasing number of global
megapolises threatens the few wild places that remain. The decentralized nature of our
communities impedes our capacity to feed ourselves in a sustainable way and also increases
transportation impacts and pollution. The overly dense urban centers in turn crowd out
healthy natural systems, isolating culture from a sense of place. As prime land for construction
diminishes, more development tends to occur in sensitive areas that are easily harmed or
destroyed. Invasive species threaten ecosystems, which are already weakened by the constant
pressure of existing human developments. Automobiles, often used as single-occupancy
vehicles, have become integral to our communities when we should depend on people power
walking and bicyclingas the primary mode of travel, and supplement it with shared transit.
IDEAL CONDITIONS + CURRENT LIMITATIONS

The Living Building Challenge envisions a moratorium on the seemingly never-ending growth
outward, and a focus instead on compact, connected communities with healthy rather than
inhumane levels of densityinherently conserving the natural resources that support human
health and the farmlands that feed us, while also inviting natural systems back into the daily
fabric of our lives. As previously disturbed areas are restored, the trend is reversed, and
natures functions are invited back into a healthy interface with the built environment.
SCALE JUMPING PERMITTED

FOR URBAN AGRICULTURE
(IMPERATIVE 02)
AND HABITAT EXCHANGE
(IMPERATIVE 03)
Human behavior and attitudes are the most significant barriers to transforming our
surroundings. There is a frontier mentality that seems to encourage people to keep pursuing
the next open territory and to value the untouched site more than the secondhand site.
Humanity is territorial by nature, and we tend to view our impacts through a narrow lens. It is
not unusual for us to encourage unhealthy solutions, so long as they are not in my backyard
and allow us the social stature to keep up with the Joneses. We must erase the taboo
associated with certain forms of transit and abandoned industrial and commercial facilities,
and we must once again give our regard to the many others that cohabit the earth with us.
23
PLACE
Projects may only be built on greyfields or brownfields: previously developed6

sites that are not classified as on or adjacent to any of the following sensitive
ecological habitats7:
LIMITS TO
GROWTH
Wetlands: maintain at least 15 meters, and up to 70 meters of separation.

Primary dunes: maintain at least 40 meters of separation.
Old-growth forest: maintain at least 60 meters of separation.
IMPERATIVE
01
Virgin prairie: maintain at least 30 meters of separation.

On prime farmland.
Within the 100-year flood plain.
Project teams must document site conditions prior to the start of work and identify
the projects reference habitat(s).8 On-site landscape must be designed so that
as it matures and evolves, it emulates the functionality of the reference habitat with
regard to density, biodiversity, plant succession, water use, and nutrient needs. It
shall also provide wildlife and avian habitat appropriate to the projects Transect
through the use of native and naturalized plants and topsoil.9
No petrochemical fertilizers or pesticides can be used for the operation and
maintenance of the on-site landscape.
6 Sites that qualify must have been altered from a greenfield prior to December 31, 2007.
7 Refer to the Place Petal Handbook for clarifications and exceptions. There are cases when
building on a greenfield or a sensitive ecological habitat is allowed based on project type,
Transect or other conditions.
8 Project Teams can use the WWF Wildfinder tool and/or other research tool(s) to identify the
projects reference habitat(s).
9 As an alternative compliance path, projects can evaluate the reference habitats Ecological
Performance Standards and develop a plan to for the project and site to meet or exceed the
ecological performance of the reference habitat.
24
PLACE
URBAN
AGRICULTURE
The project must integrate opportunities for agriculture appropriate to its scale and
density using the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a basis for calculation. The table below
outlines the mandatory agricultural requirements for all projects. Single-family homes
must also demonstrate the capacity to store at least a two-week supply of food.10
PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT AREA FOR FOOD PRODUCTION
IMPERATIVE
02
Project F.A.R.
Minimum Percentage Required
<.09
50%
.10 < .24
30%
.25 < .49
25%
.50 < .74
20%
.75 < .99
15%
1.0 < 1.49
10%
1.5 < 1.99
5%
2.0 <
2.99
2%
>3.0
1%
10 Refer to the Place Petal Handbook for clarifications such as acceptable urban agriculture
practices and area calculation information as well as exceptions by Transect.
25
PLACE
HABITAT
EXCHANGE
IMPERATIVE
03
For each hectare of development, an equal

amount of land away from the project site
must be set aside in perpetuity through the
Institutes Living Future Habitat Exchange
Program11 or an approved Land Trust
organization.12 The minimum offset amount
is 0.4 hectare.
11 ILFI now operates a Habitat Exchange

Program in cooperation with conservation
organizations. For more information visit
www.living-future.org/exchange.
12 Refer to the Place Petal Handbook for
clarifications such as information about
land trusts as well as exceptions.
26
PLACE
HUMAN
POWERED
LIVING
IMPERATIVE
04
Each new project should contribute toward the creation of walkable, pedestrianoriented communities and must not lower the density of the existing site. Teams must
evaluate the potential for a project to enhance the ability of a community to support
a human powered lifestyle, and provide a mobility plan, which addresses the interior
and exterior of the project and demonstrates at a minimum the following:
ALL PROJECTS:
Secure, weather-protected storage for human powered vehicles that
provide facilities to encourage biking.13
Consideration and enhancement of pedestrian routes, including weather
protection on street frontages.
Promotion of the use of stairs over elevators through interior layout and quality of
stairways.
Advocacy in the community to facilitate the uptake of human powered
transportation.
PROJECTS IN TRANSECTS L4-L6 MUST ALSO PROVIDE:
A transit subsidy for all occupants of the building (if owner occupied)
or a requirement for tenant employers to provide such a subsidy.
Showers and changing facilities that can be accessed by all occupants of the
building.
At least one electric vehicle charging station.
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (ALL TRANSECTS):
An assessment of how the residents can reduce their transportation impact
through car sharing, use of public transportation, alternative fueled vehicles,
or bicycles is required.
13 Bike storage is recommended for 15% of occupants; teams should consider the occupancy type
and location of the project.
27
WATER
28
WATER
CREATING DEVELOPMENTS THAT
OPERATE WITHIN THE WATER BALANCE
OF A GIVEN PLACE AND CLIMATE
PETAL INTENT
The intent of the Water Petal is to realign how people use water and to redefine
waste in the built environment so that water is respected as a precious resource.
Scarcity of potable water is quickly becoming a serious issue as many countries
around the world face severe shortages and compromised water quality. Even
regions that have avoided the majority of these problems to date due to a historical
presence of abundant fresh water are at risk: the impacts of climate change, highly
unsustainable water use patterns, and the continued drawdown of major aquifers
portend significant problems ahead.
IDEAL CONDITIONS AND CURRENT LIMITATIONS

The Living Building Challenge envisions a future whereby all developments are
configured based on the carrying capacity of the site: harvesting sufficient water to
meet the needs of a given population while respecting the natural hydrology of the
land, the water needs of the ecosystem the site inhabits, and those of its neighbors.
Indeed, water can be used and purified and then used againand the cycle repeats.
Currently, such practices are often illegal due to health, land use and building
code regulations (or because of the undemocratic ownership of water rights) that
arose precisely because people were not properly safeguarding the quality of their
water. Therefore, reaching the ideal for water use means challenging outdated
attitudes and technology with decentralized site- or district-level solutions that are
appropriately scaled, elegant, and efficient.

FOR NET POSITIVE WATER
(IMPERATIVE 05)
29
WATER
NET POSITIVE
WATER
IMPERATIVE
05
Project water use and release must work in harmony with the natural water flows
of the site and its surroundings. One hundred percent of the projects water needs
must be supplied by captured precipitation or other natural closed-loop water
systems,14 and/or by recycling used project water, and must be purified as needed
without the use of chemicals.
All stormwater and water discharge, including grey and black water, must
be treated onsite and managed either through reuse, a closed loop system,
or infiltration. Excess stormwater can be released onto adjacent sites under
certain conditions.
14 Refer to the v3.1 Water Petal Handbook for clarifications and exceptions, such as allowances
for a municipal potable water use connection if required by local heath regulations.
30

Photo: Farshid Assassi / Courtesy: BNIM Architects
31
ENERGY
32
Rooftop Solar Array at The Bullitt Center

Seattle, WA
Photo: Nic LeHoux
ENERGY
RELYING ONLY ON CURRENT
SOLAR INCOME
PETAL INTENT
The intent of the Energy Petal is to signal a new age of design, wherein the built
environment relies solely on renewable forms of energy and operates year round
in a safe, pollution-free manner. In addition, it aims to prioritize reductions and
optimization before technological solutions are applied to eliminate wasteful
spendingof energy, resources, and dollars. The majority of energy generated
today is from highly polluting and often politically destabilizing sources including
coal, gas, oil, and nuclear power. Large-scale hydro, while inherently cleaner, results
in widespread damage to ecosystems. Burning wood, trash, or pellets releases
particulates and carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere and often strains local
supplies of sustainably harvested biomass while robbing the soil of much-needed
nutrient recycling. The effects of these energy sources on regional and planetary
health are becoming increasingly evident through climate change, the most
worrisome major global trend attributed to human activity.

The Living Building Challenge envisions a safe, reliable and decentralized
power grid, powered entirely by renewable energy, supplied to incredibly
efficient buildings and infrastructure without the negative externalities associated
with combustion or fission.
Although there has been considerable progress made to advance renewable energy
technologies, there is still a need for a greater efficiency from these systems and for
new, cleaner ways to store the energy they generate. These needs, together with the
current cost of the systems available, are the major limitations to reaching our goals.

FOR NET POSITIVE ENERGY
(IMPERATIVE 06)
33
ENERGY
NET POSITIVE
ENERGY
IMPERATIVE
06
One hundred and five percent of the

projects energy needs must be supplied
by on-site renewable energy on a net
annual basis, without the use of on-site
combustion.15 Projects must provide onsite energy storage for resiliency.16
15 Refer to the v3.1 Energy Petal Handbook for a

list of renewable energy systems, clarifications,
and exceptions, including sub-metering
requirements.
16 Singlefamily residences must demonstrate
that sufficient back-up battery power is
installed for emergency lighting (at least
10% of lighting load) and refrigeration use
for up to one week for greater resiliency. All
other project types must create a resiliency
plan appropriate to the occupancy type that
includes, at minimum, the capacity to store the
energy equivalent to 10% of the lighting load
for one week.
34
Solar array at The Hawaii Preparatory Academy Energy Lab, Kamuela, HI

Okanagan College, Kelowna, BC

Courtesy: CEI Architecture
35
HEALTH +
HAPPINESS
36
HEALTH +
HAPPINESS
CREATING ENVIRONMENTS THAT
OPTIMIZE PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
HEALTH AND WELL BEING
PETAL INTENT
The intent of the Health + Happiness Petal is to focus on the most important
environmental conditions that must be present to create robust, healthy spaces,
rather than to address all of the potential ways that an interior environment could
be compromised.
Many developments provide substandard conditions for health and productivity,
and human potential is greatly diminished in these places. By focusing attention
on the major pathways of health, we create environments designed to optimize
our well-being.

The Living Building Challenge envisions a nourishing, highly productive and healthy
built environment. However, even the best available solutions require acceptance and
engagement by the project occupants and the project owner. It is difficult to ensure
that developments will remain healthy over time, since environmental conditions such as
air quality, thermal control, and visual comfort can easily be compromised in numerous
ways. It can also be complicated to ensure optimal conditions due to the unpredictable
nature of how people operate and maintain their indoor spaces.
37
HEALTH + HAPPINESS
CIVILIZED
ENVIRONMENT
IMPERATIVE
07
Every regularly occupied space must

have operable windows that provide
access to fresh air and daylight.17
17 Refer to the v3.1 Health + Happiness Petal

Handbook for clarifications, exceptions,
and information regarding minimum
requirements for windows.
38
HEALTH + HAPPINESS
HEALTHY
INTERIOR
ENVIRONMENT
IMPERATIVE
08
To promote good indoor air quality, a project must create a Healthy Interior
Environment Plan that explains how the project will achieve an exemplary indoor
environment, including the following:
Compliance with the current version of ASHRAE 62, or international equivalent.
Smoking must be prohibited within the project boundary.
Results from an Indoor Air Quality test before, and nine months after,
occupancy.18
Compliance with the CDPH Standard Method v1.1-2010 (or international
equivalent) for all interior building products that have the potential to emit
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).19
Dedicated exhaust systems for kitchens, bathrooms, and janitorial areas. 20
An entry approach that reduces particulates tracked in through shoes.
An outline of a cleaning protocol that uses cleaning products that comply with
the EPA Design for the Environment label (or international equivalent). 21
18 Testing protocols must be consistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Compendium of Methods for the Determination, or international equivalent. Refer to the v3.1
Health + Happiness Petal Handbook for the required Air Quality Conditions.
19 California Department of Public Health. Products not regulated by CDPH do not need to comply.
20 Refer to the v3.1 Health + Happiness Petal Handbook for the specifics of approved entry strategies,
including vestibule requirements.
21 www.epa.gov/dfe.
NRDC Midwest Office, Chicago, IL

Petal Certification
Courtesy: Studio Gang Architects
39
HEALTH + HAPPINESS
BIOPHILIC
ENVIRONMENT
IMPERATIVE
09
The project must be designed to include elements that nurture the innate human/
nature connection. Each project team must engage in a minimum of one all-day
exploration of the biophilic design potential for the project. The exploration must
result in a biophilic framework and plan for the project that outlines the following22:
How the project will be transformed by deliberately incorporating nature
through Environmental Features, Light and Space, and Natural Shapes and
Forms.
How the project will be transformed by deliberately incorporating natures
patterns through Natural Patterns and Processes and Evolved Human-Nature
Relationships.
How the project will be uniquely connected to the place, climate, and culture
through Place-Based Relationships.
The provision of sufficient and frequent human-nature interactions in both the
interior and the exterior of the project to connect the majority of occupants
with nature directly.
The plan must contain methods for tracking biophilia at each design phase. The plan
should include historical, cultural, ecological, and climatic studies that thoroughly
examine the site and context for the project.
22 Each of the biophilic design elements is outlined on table 1-1, p. 15 of Biophilic Design: The Theory,
Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life by Stephen R. Kellert, Judith H. Heerwagen,
and Martin L. Mador.
40

Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens, Pittsburgh, PA

Photo: Denmarsh Photography, Inc.
41
MATERIALS
42
UniverCity Childcare Centre

Burnaby, BC
Courtesy: space2place
MATERIALS
ENDORSING PRODUCTS THAT ARE SAFE
FOR ALL SPECIES THROUGH TIME
PETAL INTENT
The intent of the Materials Petal is to help create a materials economy that is non-toxic,
ecologically restorative, transparent, and socially equitable. Throughout their life cycle,
building materials are responsible for many adverse environmental issues, including personal
illness, habitat and species loss, pollution, and resource depletion. The Imperatives in this
section aim to remove the worst known offending materials and practices and to drive
business toward a truly responsible materials economy. When impacts can be reduced
but not eliminated, there is an obligation not only to offset the damaging consequences
associated with the construction process, but also to strive for corrections in the industry
itself. At the present time, it is impossible to gauge the true environmental impact and
toxicity of the built environment due to a lack of product-level information, although the
Living Building Challenge continues to shine a light on the need for transformative industrial
practices.

The Living Building Challenge envisions a future where all materials in the built environment
are regenerative and have no negative impact on human and ecosystem health. The
precautionary principle guides all materials decisions when impacts are unclear.
There are significant limitations to achieving the ideal for the materials realm. Product
specification and purchase has far-reaching impacts, and although consumers are starting to
weigh these in parallel with other more conventional attributes such as aesthetics, function
and cost, the biggest shortcoming is due to the market itself. While there are a huge number
of green products for sale, there is also a shortage of good, publicly available data that
backs up manufacturer claims and provides consumers with the ability to make conscious,
informed choices. Transparency is vital; as a global community, the only way we can transform
into a truly sustainable society is through open communication and honest information
sharing, yet many manufacturers are wary of sharing trade secrets that afford them a
competitive advantage, and make proprietary claims about specific product contents.
Declare, the Institutes ingredients label for building products, is a publicly accessible label
and online database with an official connection to the Materials Petal. Not only does Declare
contribute to the overt methodology for removing a temporary exception, it also provides a
forum for sharing the information compiled by a project team as part of their documentation
requirements for certification.
FOR EMBODIED CARBON
FOOTPRINT (IMPERATIVE 11)

declareproducts.com
43
MATERIALS
There are temporary exceptions for numerous Red List items due to current
limitations in the materials economy. Refer to the v3.1 Materials Petal Handbook for
complete and up-to-date listings.
RED LIST
The project cannot contain any of the following Red List materials or chemicals:23
Alkylphenols
Asbestos
Bisphenol A (BPA)
IMPERATIVE
10
Cadmium
Chlorinated Polyethylene and Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene
Chlorobenzenes
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
Chloroprene (Neoprene)
Chromium VI
Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC)
Formaldehyde (added)
Halogenated Flame Retardants (HFRs)
Lead (added)
Mercury
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs)
Phthalates
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Polyvinylidene Chloride (PVDC)
Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins
Wood treatments containing Creosote, Arsenic or Pentachlorophenol
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in wet-applied products 24
23 A link to the list of CAS registry numbers that correspond with each Red List item is available in
the v3.1 Materials Petal Handbook.
24 Wet-applied products (coatings, adhesives, sealants) must not exceed specific VOC levels. Refer
to the v3.1 Materials Petal Handbook for details.
44
MATERIALS
EMBODIED
CARBON
FOOTPRINT
IMPERATIVE
11
The project must account for the total

embodied carbon (tCO2e) impact from its
construction through a one-time carbon
offset from an approved carbon offset
provider. 25
25 Refer to the v3.1 Materials Petal Handbook

for approved carbon offset programs,
clarifications, and exceptions.

45
MATERIALS
For timber, all wood must be certified to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)26 100%
labeling standards, from salvaged sources, or from the intentional harvest of on-site
timber for the purpose of clearing the area for construction or restoring/maintaining the
continued ecological function of the on-site bionetwork.
RESPONSIBLE
INDUSTRY
12
The project must advocate for the creation

and adoption of third-party certified
standards for sustainable resource extraction
and fair labor practices. Applicable raw
materials include stone and rock, metal,
minerals, and timber.
All projects must use, at a minimum, one Declare product for every 500 square meters
of gross building area, and must send Declare program information to at least ten
manufacturers not currently using Declare. 28
IMAGE DEPICTS A BLANK LABEL PRIOR TO CUSTOMIZATION BY MANUFACTURER
IMPERATIVE
For stone, project teams must advocate to quarries and/or manufacturers of all
dimension stone products used within the project for certification under the Natural
Stone Council (NSC) 373 Standard. 27
SM
Intentionally simple in scope. By focusing on

product ingredients, we hope to level the playing
field and create a platform for constructive
conversations about the human health and
ecological impacts of the decisions we make.
Options: Take back program; Salvageable
or reusable in its entirety; Recyclable (%);
Product Name
Manufacturer Name
Landfill; Hazardous waste (%).
City, State/Province, Country

Life Expectancy: 000 YEARS
End of Life Options: Recyclable (42%), Landfill
Ingredients:
Ingredient One (Location, ST), The Second

Item (Location, ST), NextIngredient
(Location, ST), Living Building Challenge Red
List*, Different Part of the Product, Another
Component, More Stuff, US EPA Chemical
of Concern, Yet Another Item, Non-toxic
Element, Pieceofthewhole, Component
of Concoction, ThirdFromTheEnd, ECHA
REACH Substance of Very High Concern, Last
Ingredient.
All intentionally added ingredients are color

coded to communicate potential hazards:
Living Building Challenge Red List
Other Chemicals of Concern
Not referenced as a hazardous chemical
Temporary Red List chemical exceptions
applied for specific product types.
*LBC Exception Applied I11-E1 PVC & Code

XXX-0000

Certification
Status

EXP.12/2010
LBC Red List Compliant

LBC Red List Free
Declared
Declare identifier for company + product

Valid for 12 months, starting with the date of issue
Verification that a product complies with
the Living Building Challenge Red List.
INTERNATIONAL LIVING FUTURE INSTITUTE www.declare.com

MANUFACTURER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LABEL ACCURACY
SM
26 Refer to the v3.1 Materials Petal Handbook for a full list of exceptions, such as an exception for wood
in existing buildings undergoing renovation.
27 http://naturalstonecouncil.org/education-training/nsc-initiatives/dimensional-stone-standard/.
28 www.declareproducts.com.
46
MATERIALS
LIVING
ECONOMY
SOURCING
IMPERATIVE
13
The project must incorporate place-based solutions and contribute to the

expansion of a regional economy rooted in sustainable practices, products,
and services.
Manufacturer location for materials and services
must adhere to the following restrictions:
20% or more of the materials construction budget29 must come from within 500
kilometers of construction site.
An additional 30% of the materials construction budget must come from within
1000 kilometers of the construction site or closer.
An additional 25% of the materials construction budget must come from within
5000 kilometers of the construction site.
25% of materials may be sourced from any location.
Consultants must come from within 2500 kilometers of the project location. 30
29 Materials construction budget is defined as all material costs and excludes labor, soft costs, and
land. Declare products and salvaged materials may be counted at twice their value. Certain natural
building materials may include labor cost in their calculation. Refer to the v3.1 Materials Petal
Handbook for more information.
30 There is an exception for specialty consultants and subcontractors, and for consultants that have
their Living Future Accreditation, who may travel up to 5,000 km. Refer to the v3.1 Materials Petal
Handbook for additional exceptions.
Painters Hall
Courtesy: Pringle Creek Community
47
MATERIALS
NET POSITIVE
WASTE
The project team must strive to reduce or eliminate the production of waste during design,
construction, operation, and end of life in order to conserve natural resources and to find
ways to integrate waste back into either an industrial loop or a natural nutrient loop. 31
All projects must feature at least one salvaged material per 500 square meters of gross
building area or be an adaptive reuse of an existing structure.
The project team must create a Materials Conservation Management Plan that explains
how the project optimizes materials in each of the following phases:
IMPERATIVE
14
Design Phase, including the consideration of appropriate durability in product specification.

Construction Phase, including product optimization and collection of wasted materials.
Operation Phase, including a collection plan for consumables and durables.
End of Life Phase, including a plan for adaptable reuse and deconstruction.
During construction, the project team must divert wasted material to the following levels:
MATERIAL
MINIMUM DIVERTED/WEIGHT
Metal
99%
Paper and cardboard
99%
Soil and biomass
100%
Rigid foam, carpet, and insulation
95%
All others combined weighted average32
90%
For all project types, there must be dedicated infrastructure for the collection of
recyclables and compostable food scraps.
A project that is located on a site with existing infrastructure must complete a pre-building
audit that inventories available materials and assemblies for reuse or donation.
31 Refer to the v3.1 Materials Petal Handbook for calculation details, clarifications, and exceptions.
32 Hazardous materials in demolition waste, such as lead-based paint, asbestos, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), are exempt from percentage calculations.
48
VanDusen Botanical Garden

Visitor Center, Vancouver, BC
49
175
6
125
4
EQUITY
75
2
25
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
UPDATED 5-6-16
50

Photo: Krista Elvey
EQUITY
SUPPORTING A JUST,
EQUITABLE WORLD
PETAL INTENT
The intent of the Equity Petal is to transform developments to foster a true, inclusive sense
of community that is just and equitable regardless of an individuals background, age, class,
race, gender or sexual orientation. A society that embraces all sectors of humanity and
allows the dignity of equal access and fair treatment is a civilization in the best position to
make decisions that protect and restore the natural environment that sustains all of us.
There is a disturbing trend toward privatizing infrastructure and creating polarized attitudes
of us vs. themallowing only those of a certain economic or cultural background
to participate fully in community life. Although opposite on the spectrum, enclaves for
the wealthy are only one step removed from the racial and ethnic ghettos that continue
to plague our neighborhoods. A subset of this trend is the notion that individuals can
own access to nature itself by privatizing admittance to waterways, beaches, and other
wilderness areas, cutting off most people from the few pristine environmental places
that remain. Only by realizing that we are indeed all in this together can the greatest
environmental and social problems be addressed.
We need to aggressively challenge the notion that property ownership somehow implies
that we can do whatever we like, even externalize the negative environmental impacts of
our actions onto others.
For example, consider these situations: when a polluting factory is placed next to a
residential community, the environmental burdens of its operation are placed on the
individuals who live in those houses. The factory is diminishing its neighbors rights to clean
air, water and soil. When a building towers over another structure, its shadow diminishes
that structures ability to generate clean and renewable energy, thereby impeding the rights
to energy independence. We all deserve access to sunlight and clean air, to water and soil.
We need to prioritize the concept of citizen above that of consumer. Equity implies the
creation of communities that provide universal access to people with disabilities and allow
people who cant afford expensive forms of transportation to fully participate in the major
elements of society. Indeed, most projects in the built environment greatly outlive the original
owner or developersociety inherits the legacies of bad decisions and good decisions alike.
Since the act of building is a considerable environmental impact shared by all, there is an
inherent responsibility to ensure that any project provides some public good and does not
degrade quality of life. Finally, it is essential that we recognize the business practices and
welfare of the people that we support as we design and build our developments.
continued >>
51
EQUITY
SUPPORTING A JUST,
EQUITABLE WORLD
JUSTSM, the Institutes ingredients label for social justice, is a publicly accessible label
and online database with an official connection to the Equity Petal. JUST provides a
powerful forum for helping project teams support organizations that share the values
of a responsible equitable living future.
justorganizations.org

The Living Building Challenge envisions communities that allow equitable access and
treatment to all people regardless of physical abilities, age, or socioeconomic status.
Current limitations to reaching this ideal stem from ingrained cultural attitudes about
the rights associated with private ownership and the varying rights of people.
It is necessary to change zoning standards in order to protect the rights of
individuals who are downstream of water, air, and noise pollution, and who are
adversely impacted due to lack of sunlight or exposure to toxins. Past attempts by
zoning standards to protect people from particularly egregious pollutants resulted
in sterile, single-use areas. A healthy, diverse community is one that encourages
multiple functions, and is organized in a way that protects the health of people and the
environment.
52
TRANSECT
EQUITY
HUMAN SCALE
AND HUMANE
PLACES
Surface
Cover
15
The project must be designed to create

human-scaled rather than automobilescaled places so that the experience
brings out the best in humanity and
promotes culture and interaction.
In context of the character of each
Transect, there are specific maximum
(and sometimes minimum) requirements
for paved areas, street and block
design, building scale, and signage that
contribute to livable places.
L2
L3
L5
L6
L4
L5
L6
L4
L5
L6
15%
L1
TRANSECT
L4
20 m x 30 m
Percentage of Project Area

allowed for surface parking.
Signage
IMPERATIVE
L1
Maximum dimension of surface parking lot before a separation is required

on three sides
e.g., building, wall, or 3 m wide
(minimum) planted median or bioswale
L2
L3
Number of large project signs per

development. Advertising billboards
are prohibited.
Signs are considered large when over four square

meters; maximum sign size is six square meters.
TRANSECT
Proportion
L1
Maximum single family residence size
N/A
Maximum distance between

faade openings
N/A
L2
425 m2
30 m
Maximum footprint for buildings

before human scale articulation
is required.
1000 m2
See the Equity Petal Handbook for clarifications and

exceptions, including articulation requirements for
large scale projects.
Human
Scale
Provision of places for people to

gather and connect internally and/or
with the neighborhood.
Provision of elements along the
project edge which support
the human scale of the larger
neighborhood, such as seat walls,
art, displays, or pocket parks. Single
Family residences are excluded.
L3
One every 1000 m2

(10,760sf)
One every 4000 m2

(43,000sf)
The project must follow the following

design guidelines:
UniverCity Childcare Centre, Burnaby, BC

Photo: Martin Tessler
53
EQUITY
UNIVERSAL
ACCESS TO
NATURE & PLACE
IMPERATIVE
16
All primary transportation, roads and non-building infrastructure that are considered
externally focused must be equally accessible to all members of the public regardless
of background, age and socioeconomic classincluding the homelesswith reasonable
steps taken to ensure that all people can benefit from the projects creation. 33
For any project (except single-family residential) located in Transects L3-L6, the public
realm must be provided for and enhanced through design measures and features that
are accessible to all members of society, such as street furniture, public art, gardens,
and benches.
Access for those with physical disabilities must be safeguarded through designs
meeting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act
(ABA) Accessibility Guidelines. 34
continued >>
33 Refer to the v3.1 Equity Petal Handbook for exceptions and clarifications regarding access.
34 Refer to the v3.1 Equity Petal Handbook for exceptions, such as those for private residences and
historic structures. Complete ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines are available online: www.
access-board.gov/adaag/about
54
Science Education at Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens, Pittsburgh, PA

Photo: Cory Doman
EQUITY
UNIVERSAL
ACCESS TO
NATURE & PLACE
IMPERATIVE
16
The project may not block access to, nor diminish the quality of, fresh air, sunlight, and
natural waterways for any member of society or adjacent developments. The project
must also appropriately address any noise audible to the public.
Fresh Air: The project must protect adjacent property from any noxious emissions
that would compromise its ability to use natural ventilation. All operational emissions
must be free of Red List items, persistent bioaccumulative toxicants, and known or
suspect carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic chemicals.
Sunlight: The project may not block sunlight to adjacent building faades and
rooftops above a maximum height allotted for the Transect.35 The project may
not shade the roof of a development with which it shares a party wall, unless the
adjoining development was built to a lesser density than acceptable for
the Transect. 36
Natural Waterways: The project may not restrict access to the edge of any natural
waterway, 37 except where such access can be proven to be a hazard to public safety
or would severely compromise the function of the project. 38 No project may assume
ownership of water contained in these bodies or compromise the quality of water
that flows downstream. If the projects boundary is more than sixty meters long
parallel to the edge of the waterway, it must incorporate and maintain an access path
to the waterway from the most convenient public right-of-way. 39
35 Exceptions relating to Transects are in the v3.1 Equity Petal Handbook.

36 This corresponds to a neighboring building that is at least two stories in L2-L3; four stories in L4;
eight stories in L5; and sixteen stories in L6.
37 Public access throughway must allow approach to waterway from land for pedestrians and
bicyclists, and from the water via boat. No infrastructure to support any water-based transport is
required.
38 For example, a working dock or marina might need to restrict shoreline access for safety reasons.
A private residence may not.
39 The easement containing the pathway must be at least three meters wide and allow entry to both
pedestrians and bicyclists.
55
EQUITY
EQUITABLE
INVESTMENT
IMPERATIVE
17
For every dollar of total project cost,40 the

development must set aside and donate half
a cent or more to a charity41 of its choosing or
contribute to ILFIs Living Equity Exchange
program, which directly funds renewable
infrastructure for charitable enterprises.42
40 Project cost includes soft costs, hard costs,

and systems furniture.
41 The charity must be located in the country
of the project and be a registered charity
or 501(c)(3).
42 See the v3.1 Equity Petal Handbook for
clarifications, exceptions and alternative
compliance paths, such as using a Community
Benefits Agreement; public agencies and
charitable organizations are exempt from this
requirement.
56
Global Change Institute at University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Courtesy: HASSELL
EQUITY
JUST
ORGANIZATIONS
IMPERATIVE
The representative from the JUST labeled organization must have an integral role in
decisions during both design and construction phases of the project. Project teams are
also required to send JUST program information to at least ten project consultants, subconsultants or product suppliers as part of ongoing advocacy.43
18
The project must help create a more JUST,

equitable society through the transparent
disclosure of the business practices of the
major organizations involved. At least one of
the following project team members must
have a JUST Label for their organization:
Architect of Record
MEP Engineer of Record
Structural Engineer of Record
Landscape Architect of Record
Interior Architect of Record
Owner/Developer
Owners Representative or Project
Manager
An innovative social justice transparency

platform through which organizations can
shed light on their operations, including how
they treat their employees and where they
make financial and community investments.
SM
Organization Name:
Organization Type:
Headquarters:
Satellite Facilities:
Number of Employees:
22 social and equity indicators.
Social Justice and Equity Indicators:
Diversity
Worker Benefit
Non-Discrimination
Gender Diversity
Ethnic Diversity
Worker Happiness
Employee Health Care
Continuing Education
Local Benefit
Equity
Local Control
Full Time Employment

Local Sourcing
Pay-Scale Equity
Employee/Union Friendly
Living Wage
Stewardship
Gender Pay Equity

Responsible Investing
Family Friendly

Community Volunteering

Positive Products
Safety

Charitable Giving

Animal Welfare

Occupational Safety

Transparency

Hazardous Chemicals

Asking all companies and organizations

to accept social responsibility and to be
truly transformative and transparent by
publicly declaring and showcasing their
social justice and equity policies and
practices through the indicator metrics.
JUST label is valid for 12 months,

starting with the date of issue.
THE SOCIAL JUSTICE LABEL

SPC-001
EXP. 10/26/2014
JUST classification number.

INTERNATIONAL LIVING FUTURE INSTITUTE
SM
justorganizations.com
Sustainability Consultant
Contractor

Photo: Nic LeHoux
43 www.justorganizations.com
57
BEAUTY
58

BEAUTY
CELEBRATING DESIGN THAT
UPLIFTS THE HUMAN SPIRIT
PETAL INTENT
The intent of the Beauty Petal is to recognize the need for beauty as a precursor to caring
enough to preserve, conserve, and serve the greater good. As a society, we are often
surrounded by ugly and inhumane physical environments. If we do not care for our homes,
streets, offices, and neighborhoods, then why should we extend care outward to our
farms, forests, and fields? When we accept billboards, parking lots, freeways, and strip
malls as being aesthetically acceptable, in the same breath we accept clear-cuts, factory
farms, and strip mines.

The Living Building Challenge envisions designs that elevate our spirits and inspire us to
be better than we currently are. Mandating beauty is, by definition, an impossible task.
And yet, the level of discussion and ultimately the results are elevated through attempting
difficult but critical tasks. In this Petal, the Imperatives are based on genuine efforts,
thoughtfully applied. We do not begin to assume that we can judge beauty and project
our own aesthetic values on others. But we do want to understand peoples objectives
and know that an effort was made to enrich peoples lives with each square meter of
construction, on each project. This intentionality of good design and graceful execution
must carry forth into a program for educating the public about the environmental qualities
of each Living Building Challenge project.
There are no current limitations to this Petal other than our imaginations and what we as a
society choose to value.
Green Roof at Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens, Pittsburgh, PA

Photo: Paul G. Wiegman
59
BEAUTY
BEAUTY
+ SPIRIT
IMPERATIVE
19
The project must meaningfully integrate

public art and contain design features
intended solely for human delight and the
celebration of culture, spirit, and place
appropriate to the projects function.
60

BEAUTY
INSPIRATION +
EDUCATION
Educational materials about the operation and performance of the project must be
provided to the public to share successful solutions and to motivate others to make
change.
All Projects must provide:
A Living Building Challenge Case Study.
An annual open day for the public.44
IMPERATIVE
20
A copy of the Operations and Maintenance Manual.44
All projects (except single family residential) must provide:

A simple brochure describing the design and environmental features of the project.
Interpretive signage that teaches visitors and occupants about the project.
An educational website.
44 See Beauty Petal Handbook for how these requirements apply to residential projects
UniverCity Childcare Centre, Burnaby, BC

Petal Certification - Living Building Challenge 2.1
Photo: Martin Tessler
61
A BRIEF HISTORY OF
THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE
The idea for Living Building Challenge emerged in the mid-1990s,

during an effort to produce the most advanced sustainable design
project in the world: the EpiCenter in Bozeman, Montana. This
project was led by Bob Berkebile and Kath Williams and was funded
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Working
with Berkebile at BNIM, Jason F. McLennan guided the research
and technology solutions for the EpiCenterin the process, he also
began to conceptualize the requirements for what is now known as a
Living BuildingSM. Following the EpiCenter, Berkebile and McLennan
continued to develop the idea and published several related articles.45
In 2000, BNIM was hired by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation
to examine the economic and environmental implications of a Living
Building alongside the various levels of LEED certification. The
findings were presented in a document called the Packard Matrix,46
which demonstrated that a Living Building was the smartest longterm choice economically, although it carried a hefty first-cost
premium. (In 2009, the Institutes Living Building Financial Study
proved that first-cost premiums have diminished, and certain building
types make immediate financial sense.) More recently, real cost data
from completed projects have rounded out the picture, proving that
the economic argument for Living Buildings is quite compelling and
first-cost premiums modest and diminishing.
In 2005, McLennan began to turn the theoretical idea into a codified
standard. He gifted the Living Building Challenge version 1.0 to the
Cascadia Green Building Council in August 2006, and three months
later the Challenge was formally launched to the public. In 2007,
McLennan hired Eden Brukman to direct the ongoing development
and international deployment of the Living Building Challenge.
45 Refer to the In The News section of the Institute website to download

early publications.
46 www.bnim.com/work/david-and-lucile-packard-foundationsustainability-report-and-matrix
62
Together, they authored Living Building Challenge 2.0, evolving the

requirements of the program and demonstrating how to apply the
Imperatives to various scales of development and settings.
In response to an increase in global attention and interest, Cascadia
founded the International Living Building Institute in 2009 as an
umbrella organization for the Living Building Challenge and its
auxiliary programs. The Institute certified the first projects in 2010,
which changed the green building movement on a fundamental
level. Groups around the world reached out to learn more about the
Living Building Challenge and to forge formal ties with the Institute,
underscoring the truth that people from all parts of the world are
looking for hopeful, practical responses to environmental, social, and
economic difficulties.
At the beginning of 2011, the Institute was renamed the International
Living Future Institute, with a mission to lead the transformation to a
world that is socially just, culturally rich and ecologically restorative.
In 2012, Amanda Sturgeon took over as director of the Challenge and
has led the process to strengthen tools and ease implementation for
projects with great success. Amanda is now the CEO of the Institute.
As of 2016, over fourteen million square feet of LBC projects are
underway, representing over a dozen building types in nearly
every climate zone on the planet. The ILFI itself moved into
a building pursuing Living Certificationthe Bullitt Center in
Seattle, Washingtonin 2013. The Living Building Challenge 3.1
is yet another step in the evolution of the Challenge, moving the
framework forward to support and inspire project teams from all
corners of the globe. The Institute offers global solutions for lasting
sustainability, partners with local communities to create grounded
and relevant solutions, and reaches out to individuals to unleash
their imagination and innovation.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
FOR DEEPER ENGAGEMENT
THE INSTITUTE CONTINUALLY WORKS TO CREATE RESOURCES THAT ADVANCE

THE UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LIVING
BUILDING CHALLENGE, AND WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT ALL ENTHUSIASTS ARE
AWARE OF THE VARIOUS WAYS TO LEARN MORE ABOUT AND PARTICIPATE IN THE
EVOLUTION OF THE PROGRAM. THIS SECTION LISTS SEVERAL OFFERINGS CREATED
BY THE INSTITUTE THAT EXPAND THE ROLE OF THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE
BEYOND A FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT, TO AN OVERLAY FOR EDUCATION,
OUTREACH AND ADVOCACY.
THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE WEBSITE
living-future.org/lbc
An online resource for project teams and others, the Living
Building Challenge section of Living-future.org provides
the Living Building Challenge Standard document and the
resources that support the certification processincluding fee
schedules for certification, detailed case studies of certified
projects, and education resources. Additional project team
resources are available to registered project teams.
INTERNATIONAL LIVING FUTURE INSTITUTE MEMBERSHIP

living-future.org/membership
Digital versions of the Petal Handbooks are available for
purchase to all International Living Future Institute members.
A current fee schedule is published on the Institutes website.
Once logged in, members are directed to a landing page with
links that provide access to the project registration form and
allow them to update their account details.
REGISTER A PROJECT
Registration is the first step toward Living Building Challenge
certification and is accessible to ILFI members. Registration
fees can be found on the Living Building Challenge website. The
registration form contains prompts for basic information about
the project, primary contact, owner, and team. Most of the
information provided at the time of registration can be updated,
if necessary, by logging in to your project dashboard.
Registered projects can benefit from many Institute resources,
such as the opportunity to submit program clarification and
exception requests through the online Dialogue. They are
also eligible to be added to the project team group account,
participate in project team calls with the Living Building
Challenge staff, and attend biannual in-person meetings. In
addition, the Institute may contact project teams to showcase
their work-in-progress through media outlets or in-house
publications.
continued >>
63
CERTIFICATION OPTIONS:
Living Certification
Projects obtain Living Certification by attaining all requirements
assigned to a Typology.
Petal Certification
Project teams may pursue Petal Certification by satisfying the
requirements of three or more Petals (at least one of which must
be Water, Energy, or Materials).
The Net Zero Energy Building Certification program requires
achievement of the NZEB portions of four of the Living Building
Challenge Imperatives: 01, Limits to Growth; 06, Net Positive
Energy, 19, Beauty + Spirit; and 20, Inspiration + Education.
The requirements for Imperative 06, Net Positive Energy, are
reduced to one hundred percent of energy demand, and no
storage for resilience, for NZEB Certification only.
Two-Part Certification
Two-Part Certification is available for projects that wish to have a
preliminary ruling issued on the Imperatives that are not required
to have a performance period. The Preliminary Audit may take
place any time after construction is complete.
64
IMPERATIVE

PRELIMINARY
AUDIT
01: Limits to Growth
02: Urban Agriculture

03: Habitat Exchange
04: Human Powered Living
05: Net Positive Water
06: Net Positive Energy
07: Civilized Environment
08: Healthy Interior Environment

09: Biophilic Environment
1 0: Red List
11: Embodied Carbon Footprint
12: Responsible Industry
13: Living Economy Sourcing
14: Net Positive Waste
The following table identifies Imperatives that are eligible for

Preliminary Audit and those requiring audit after the twelvemonth performance period.
15: Human Scale + Humane Places X
Performance Period
All projects require twelve months of occupancy data before they
can submit for certification. The exception is a Petal Certification
when the project is not pursuing any Imperatives that require a
performance period.
17: Equitable Investment
FINAL
AUDIT
16: Universal Access to

Nature and Place
18: Just Organizations
X
X
19: Beauty + Spirit

20: Inspiration + Education
June Key Delta Community Center, Portland, OR

Photo: International Living Future Institute
The preliminary audit ruling does not constitute certification

of the project, but the ruling on each Imperative will be
carried forward to the final audit. Preliminary audit rulings are
intended simply to give the team official feedback regarding
whether the Imperatives reviewed are in compliance with the
requirements, and therefore anticipated to be awarded during
the final audit. However, the site visit does not occur until the
final audit, and if teams complete work on the project that
involves the use of new materials or other changes relevant
to targeted Imperatives, additional documentation, such as a
revised materials tracking sheet, must be submitted.
For most projects, the same auditor will perform both reviews,
although this cannot be guaranteed. The final review will result
in a ruling by the auditor for certification.
Submitting for Certification:
When a project team is ready to submit their project for
Certification, they should contact the Institute at
lbc.certification@living-future.org. The team will then be
invoiced and given access to the current certification platform
in order to upload all their documents. Documentation should
be organized according to the Documentation Requirements
which are available on the Institute website.
University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

Courtesy: The University of Wollongong
RESOURCES FOR TEAMS:

The Dialogue
The Dialogue is an online platform for the transparent
exchange of ideas between project teams and the Institute
it is the official venue to request feedback on proposed
strategies for meeting the requirements of the Living Building
Challenge. The Dialogue allows for current unknowns to be
discovered and shared in real time as teams proceed with their
projects and research. It provides teams with the flexibility to
get information most relevant to their work, such as in-depth
commentaries, compliance paths, clarifications, and temporary
exceptions.
Organized by the twenty Imperatives and filterable based on
specific content, the activity in the Dialogue not only serves
as a platform for distributing strategies for success, it also
yields modifications to future releases of the Standard itself. In
this way, the Dialogue captures the ongoing evolution of the
Living Building Challenge and gives credit to the hundreds, if
not thousands, of individuals who contribute to the process.
Dialogue content is available to registered projects only.
Petal Handbooks
The Petal Handbooks are a resource for project teams pursuing
the Living Building Challenge. Because the Living Building
Challenge program is continuously informed by the work that
project teams are doing on the ground, the Handbooks have
been developed to clarify and consolidate the rules at a set
point in time to provide a unified reference for project teams.
They are periodically updated to include all current Dialogue
posts. While the Petal Handbooks are an excellent reference
tool, they should be used in conjunction with the Dialogue to
ensure that the most up-to-date rulings are understood.
65
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Because the Living Building Challenge defines priorities on
both a technical level and as a set of core values,
it requires an approach to design, construction, and operation
that is fundamentally different than the current conventional
structure. The Institute wants every undertaking to be
successful on multiple levels. It supports a project teams
transformative process of adopting the principles of the
Challenge by offering optional services that shift the mindset
and provide practical knowledge.
In addition to the specific services noted below, the Institute
can also fashion customized options to match a projects needs
during the design phases. The project team administrator may
inquire about or schedule technical assistance by emailing lbc.
support@living-future.org.
In-House Workshops
The Institute offers optional, customized training as a service
for organizations and project teams to ensure that everyone
has a shared fundamental understanding of the Living Building
Challenge or particular Petal area. Whether there is a specific
area of interest or a desire for a private presentation of an
established curriculum, the Institute can deliver customized
educational sessions. The most common workshop requested
is a full-day introduction to Living Building Challenge that
also includes discussion of contextual information such as
development patterns and density, and regulatory, financial,
behavioral, and technological barriers and incentives.
Charrette Facilitation
To steer teams toward innovative yet feasible solutions for
their Living Building Challenge projects, the Institute offers an
optional service to lead the kick-off meeting, or charrette,
and to help define fundamental, strategic goals. A charrette
should take place at the beginning of a project, when the
potential to explore is at its fullest. The one-day meeting
format focuses on fostering an interactive dialogue that allows
participants to consider each area of impact. The two- or
three-day format allows time for a deeper examination of
promising ideas. The Institute designs the agenda, facilitates
the session, and provides a follow-up summary document.
Design Development Guidance Review
This optional service is intended to improve a projects
potential to comply with the Living Building Challenge
requirements at multiple points in the design process where
adjustments are still possible. The Institute performs a remote
review with the team to learn how the project accounts for
each Imperative of the Living Building Challenge. Following
a review of the project documents, the Institute will issue
a report outlining guidance for the team to improve their
ability to succeed. It is possible to receive feedback on the
Imperatives within a single Petal, select Petals, or all seven
Petals of the Living Building Challenge.
More in-depth, Petal-specific workshops that focus on Water,

Energy, and Materials are also available.
continued >>
66
EDUCATION
The Institute is dedicated to transforming theory and practice in all
sectors of the building industry, and offers several ways to broaden
ones knowledge of deep-green building principles and practices,
including the following:
Public Workshops + Webinars
The Institute offers in-person and online workshops taught by
expert faculty about the Living Building Challenge and related
topics. Workshops are continually developed throughout the
year and are announced online and on the website. The Institute
welcomes suggestions for future workshop content. Contact
Institute staff to discuss options for hosting a workshop locally by
emailing education@living-future.org.
Living Future unConference
The Institutes three-day unConference is the flagship annual
event for leading minds in the green building movement seeking
solutions to the most daunting global issues of our time. Out-ofthe-ordinary learning and networking formats deliver innovative
design strategies, cutting-edge technical information, and muchneeded inspiration to achieve progress toward a truly living future.
Education sessions encourage a hopeful approach to the planets
economic, ecological and social challenges, and offer solutions for
sites, infrastructure, buildings, and neighborhoods.
Living Future offers project teams the opportunity to interact with
other teams with similar project types, climates, or regulatory
challenges. Each Living Future hosts a project team forum and
several face-to-face gatherings.
continued >>
67
Trim Tab
Trim Tab is the Institutes quarterly
digital magazine. Each issue features
provocative articles, interviews, and
news on the issues, designs, and
people that are truly transforming the
built environment. Subscriptions are
free, and a complete archive of past
issues is available on the Institutes
website: living-future.org/trimtab.
RESEARCH
Despite the rigor of the Living Building
Challenge, project teams are proving
that the strict requirements of the
program are very solvable. However,
both perceived and real limitations to
success still exist that are technical,
regulatory, behavioral or financialor
a combination of these influencing
factors. In collaboration with partners
in the design and construction field,
local and state governments, and
other forward-thinking nonprofits,
the Institute is spearheading efforts
to carry out cutting-edge research
and create practical tools. The latest
published reports are posted on the
Institutes website:
living-future.org/research.
continued >>
68
AMBASSADOR NETWORKSPREADING THE WORD ABOUT

LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE
The Ambassador Network is a global initiative to encourage the
rapid and widespread adoption of restorative principles guided
by the Living Building Challenge and the Living Community
Challenge. Living Community Ambassadors will soon be
added to the Network. Professionals from all walks of life are
encouraged to sign up for the Ambassador Network and help
us spread the word about a Living Future. The power of the
network allows best practices and ideas to be shared globally,
harnessing the best of social media and communication tools
for rapid interchange. The Network has been designed to
support the continued flow of ideas and solutions among
participants and the Institute. It presents numerous options for
engagement, and the Institute has created a wealth of related
training materials and resources. More information about the
Ambassador Network and the online applications are available
on the Institutes website: living-future.org/ambassador
Ambassador Presenters of An Introduction to the Living
Building Challenge: Professionals who wish to shift the
focus of green building conversations are trained through
the Ambassador Network to deliver one-hour, informal
introductory presentations to peers, local organizations,
institutions, companies, and community groups. The
presentations are delivered by volunteers, with the purpose
of raising awareness around the Living Building Challenge.
Presentations around the Living Community Challenge will be
added soon. Ambassador Presenters help build local capacity
for the formation of Living Building Challenge Collaboratives,
forums for sustained discussions on restorative principles.

Living Building Challenge Collaboratives: In communities all

over the world, the principles of the Living Building Challenge
are being shared and disseminated by our growing network
of Collaboratives. These community-based groups meet in
person regularly to share knowledge and create the local
conditions that support development of Living Buildings
and Communities. Collaboratives are overseen by at least
two trained Collaborative Facilitators, who are responsible
for cultivating a welcoming environment for grassroots
involvement and outreach. Each Living Building Challenge
Collaborative has an active social media presence via Facebook
and various other outlets. Visit living-future.org/ambassador
to locate a Collaborative in your area, or contact us to learn
how to start a new Collaborative in your city.
OTHER WAYS TO GET INVOLVED
Continued advancement of the Living Building Challenge and
Living Community Challenge will require many minds and
great ideas. The Institute has established a presence on an
array of online communication forums that make it possible
to aggregate impressions, suggestions and insightsplease
reach out to us today to get involved and contribute to a
Living Future!
/livingbuildingchallenge and /livingfutureinstitute
@livingbuilding and @Living_Future
69
GLOSSARY
Adaptable reuse
The process of reusing a site
or building for a purpose other
than the original purpose for
which it was built or designed.
Adjacent properties
Properties or developments
that share a property line
with the project.
Blackwater
Discharged water containing
solid and liquid human wastes
from toilets and urinals.
Brownfield
With certain legal exclusions
and additions, the term
brownfield site means real
property, the expansion,
redevelopment, or reuse of
which may be complicated
by the presence or potential
presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or
contaminant. Brownfields are
designated as such by the EPA,
or by the equivalent state,
county, or other jurisdictional
body.
Chemical Abstracts Service
(CAS) number
A unique numerical identifier
for nearly every known
chemical, compound or
organic substance.
70
Closed-loop water systems

Systems in which all water
used on a project is captured,
treated, used/reused and/or
released within the boundaries
of the project area.
Combustion
Any burning or combustion of
fossil fuels or wood products.
Consumables
Non-durable goods that are
likely to be used up or depleted
quickly. Examples include
office supplies, packaging
and containers, paper and
paper products, batteries and
cleaning products.
Deconstruction
The systematic removal of
materials from a building or
project for the purposes of
salvage, reuse and/or recycling.
Diverted waste
All items removed from the
project, including materials
that are recycled, reused,
salvaged or composted.
Dune
A sand hill or sand ridge
formed by the wind, usually in
desert regions or near lakes
and oceans.
Durables
Goods that have utility
over time rather than being
depleted quickly through use.
Examples include appliances,
electronic equipment, mobile
phones and furniture.
Energy needs
All electricity, heating and
cooling requirements of
either grid-tied or off-the-grid
systems, excluding
back-up generators.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
FAR = Gross Building Area /
Total Project Area
Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC)
An independent, non-profit,
membership-led organization
that protects forests for
future generations and sets
standards under which forests
and companies are certified.
Membership consists of three
equally weighted chambers
environmental, economic, and
socialto ensure the balance
and the highest level of integrity.
Greyfield
A previously developed
property that is not
contaminated to the level
of a brownfield.
Greenfield
Land that was not previously
developed or polluted.
Greywater
Water discharged from sinks,
showers, laundry, drinking
fountains, etc., but not
including water discharged
from toilets and urinals.
Halogenated flame retardants
(HFRs)
HFRs include PBDE, TBBPA,
HBCD, Deca-BDE, TCPP,
TCEP, Dechlorane Plus and
other retardants with bromine
or chlorine.
Land trust
A nonprofit organization that,
as all or part of its mission,
actively works to conserve land
by undertaking or assisting in
land or conservation easement
acquisition, or by its stewardship
of such land or easements.
Landscape remnant
A pre-settlement native
plant community or a plant
community that has survived on
a site to the present day.
Landscape restoration
Reversion of a plant community
back to a pre-settlement
state through management.
University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

Courtesy: The University of Wollongong
Restorations usually involve

removing a plant community
that has taken over a native
ecosystem or remnant and are
often supplemented with seeds
from plants that may have grown
on the site.
Landscape succession
The gradual evolution of
vegetation towards a more
complex and ecologically
appropriate state.
Manufacturer location
The final point of fabrication
or manufacture of an assembly
or building material.
Materials Construction Budget
All the material costs delivered
to the site, excluding labor, soft
costs and land.
Native prairies
Diverse ecosystems dominated
by grasses and other flowering
plants called forbs; for the
Challenge, native prairies can be
either landscape remnants or
landscape restorations.
Naturalized plants
Plants that were introduced
but are established as if native.
Invasive plants that endanger
native plants or ecosystems are
not considered naturalized for
Bertschi School, Seattle, WA

Courtesy: space2place
the purposes of the Challenge.

Old-growth forest
Natural forests that have
developed over a long
period of time, generally
at least 120 years, without
experiencing severe, standreplacing disturbance such as
a fire, windstorm, or logging.
Ecosystems distinguished by
old trees and related structural
attributes that may include
tree size, accumulations of
large dead woody material,
number of canopy layers,
species composition, and
ecosystem function.
On-site landscape
The planted area not used to
comply with the requirements of
Imperative 02: Urban Agriculture.
The strategies implemented for
each Imperative are not required
to be mutually exclusive or
physically separated.
Potable water
Water that is fit for
human consumption.
Previously developed
A site with existing or
historic structures or on-site
infrastructure, or a site that has
experienced disturbance related
to building activity, including
monoculture agriculture. Roads

built for natural resource
extraction (e.g., logging roads
or mining areas) do NOT qualify
a site as previously developed.
Primary dune
A continuous or nearly
continuous mound or ridge
of sand with relatively steep
seaward and landward
slopes immediately landward
and adjacent to the beach
and subject to erosion and
overtopping from high tides
and waves during major coastal
storms. The inland limit of the
primary frontal dune occurs
at the point where there is a
distinct change from a relatively
steep slope to a relatively
mild slope.
Prime farmland
Land that has been used for
agricultural production at some
time during the four years
prior to the relevant Important
Farmland Map date, or in the
5 years prior to the project,
and where the soil meets the
physical and chemical criteria
for Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance as
determined by the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS).
Project Area
The entire scope of the project
and all areas disturbed by the
project work including areas
of construction, staging and
conveyance, which is typically,
but not necessarily, all land
within the property line. Project
Area must be consistent across
all Imperatives.
Project water discharge

All water leaving the building
including stormwater, greywater
and blackwater.
Renewable energy
Energy generated through
passive solar, photovoltaics,
solar thermal, wind turbines,
water-powered microturbines,
direct geothermal or fuel cells
powered by hydrogen generated
from renewably powered
electrolysis. Nuclear energy is
not an acceptable option.
Salvaged materials
Used building materials that
can be re-purposed wholly in
their current form or with slight
refurbishment or alterations.
Stormwater
Precipitation that falls on the
ground surfaces of a property.
71
GLOSSARY
Systems furniture
A modular furniture system that
might include work surfaces,
cabinetry, file systems, flexible
partitions, and desk chairs used to
create or furnish a series of offices
workspaces.
Wetland
Those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas.
72

NOTES
73
74

NOTES
75
76
David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Altos, CA

Photo: Jeremy Bitterman
NOTES
77
78

LIVING
BUILDING
CHALLENGE
SM
1501 EAST MADISON STREET

SUITE 150
SEATTLE, WA 98122
tel: 206.223.2028
livingbuildingchallenge.org

Photo: Nic LeHoux
$36.95 USD/CAN

16-0504 LBC 3 - 1 - V03-Web

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

16-0504 LBC 3 - 1 - V03-Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIVING

LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE 3.1

A Visionary Path to a Regenerative Future

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be modified,

This particular document may be printed and distributed

For information, address:

This document may be transmitted in PDF form only

Copyright 2016 by International Living Future Institute

Living Building Challenge is a trademark of the International

This document may be posted on websites in its entirety and

a building designed and constructed to

a city block or a college campus sharing

true sustainability in our homes,

Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1

Ethnobotanical Garden at Bertschi School, Seattle, WA

WHAT DOES GOOD LOOK LIKE?

The International Living Future Institute issues a challenge:

INSTEAD OF A WORLD THAT IS

Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1

SETTING THE IDEAL AS THE INDICATOR OF SUCCESS

Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1

10. Red List

11. Embodied Carbon Footprint

12. Responsible Industry

13. Living Economy Sourcing

14. Net Positive Waste

15. Human Scale + Humane Places

16. Universal Access to Nature & Place

17. Equitable Investment

18. JUST Organizations

01. Limits to Growth

02. Urban Agriculture

03. Habitat Exchange

04. Car Free Living

19. Beauty + Spirit

05. Net Positive Water

06. Net Positive Energy

20. Inspiration + Education

07. Civilized Environment

08. Healthy Interior Environment

09. Biophilic Environment

The Hawaii Preparatory Academy Energy Lab, Kamuela, HI

Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1

OUR GOAL IS SIMPLE. IN THE

Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1

successful because it satisfies our left-brain craving for order

Projects that achieve Living Building status can claim to be

McGilvra Park, Seattle, WA

What if every single act of design and construction made the

Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1

WE ARE ENTERING A WORLD OF

Attributed to E. O. Wilson, a biologist, theorist, researcher and

Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1

Since it was launched in 2006, the Living Building Challenge

THIS STANDARD IS AN ACT OF

Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1

HOW THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE WORKS

PROVEN PERFORMANCE RATHER

The Hawaii Preparatory Academy Energy Lab, Kamuela, HI

The Hawaii Preparatory Academy Energy Lab, Kamuela, HI

NET ZERO ENERGY

A project achieves Living

While achieving Living

M ULTI-FAMILYMARKET RATE OR AFFORDABLE